Waters's office confirmed to The Hill that she will not attend the speech, but denied that she has encouraged other members to skip as well.

The California Democrat similarly refused to attend Trump's inauguration in January, saying she "never contemplated even going near any of those activities." Nearly 70 other Democratic lawmakers also skipped the ceremony.

"I don't honor him, I don't respect him and I don't want to be involved with him," Waters said at the time.

Waters has positioned herself as a staunch opponent of the president. She said earlier this month that her "greatest desire is to lead [Trump] right into impeachment."

She later clarified that comment, saying that she meant the president's actions were leading him toward impeachment.

"I think he is leading himself into that kind of position, where folks will begin to ask, 'What are we going to do?'" she said. "And the answer's going to be, eventually, we've got to do something about him."

So far, Waters is the only lawmaker to announce that she will boycott Trump's first address to Congress.

"But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States."-- Alexander Hamilton

In 2016, Christians were the most persecutedreligious group on the planet and the trend is continuing.

Over the past three weeks in Egypt, a number of Christians have been hunted down and killed. Hundreds of Christians have fled their homes in recent months due to regular assassination of church members practicing their faith.

Suspected Islamic militants gunned down a Christian man inside his home in northern Sinai, officials and a priest said Friday, the latest in a string of sectarian killings there that has sent hundreds of Christians fleeing and raised accusations the government is failing to protect the community.

The militants stormed the home of Kamel Youssef, a plumber, on Thursday and shot him to death in front of his wife and children in the town of el-Arish, said two security officials and the priest.

According to Lisa Daftari at The Foreign Desk, militant groups sympathetic to ISIS have developed a kill list for Christians in the Sinai region.

In the past few days, several ‘kill lists’ have been posted anonymously by jihadists online, highlighting churches across Egypt, and in some cases, listing names of prominent Christians to target.

The lists were posted to various private Telegram channels including one seen by The Foreign Desk entitled “Egypt’s murtad (apostate) watch”

“Praise be to Allah.. we will post some of the churches and congregation sizes across Egypt,” the post begins, rallying pro-ISIS jihadis to target the larger churches for maximum impact.

The post instructs Muslims to “target the infidel Christians attacking their churches and those who protect them using weapons, improvised weapons, daggers and even stones.”

According to Open Doors USA, 215 million Christians around the world were persecuted in some way last week for simply practicing their faith. Last summer, the Obama administration officially declared ISIS is carrying out a genocide against Christians in the Middle East and North Africa.

A couple of weeks ago I penned a comprehensive and mandatory piece that I modestly titled "A General Theory of Leftist Politics." I argued that leftist politics has always been about representing the unrepresented, the people outside the system. Think workers in 1850, African-Americans in 1950.

Imagine my delight when I noticed, on my regular afternoon walk, one of those placards that are starting to breed like rabbits outside liberal houses in liberal North Seattle. The sign said, in English, in Spanish, and in Arabic, that you are welcome here and you belong.

Was I right, or was I right? Liberals now demand the right to represent the only people left in the world that are not properly represented by the system: illegal Hispanic aliens and violent Muslim jihadis. And they are signaling their virtue with mass-produced signs outside their wealthy homes in their wealthy fashionable neighborhoods.

I wonder which Democratic bigwig runs the non-partisan 501(c)(3) Center for Lefty Antifascist Astroturf Resistance and Messaging that coordinates this sort of thing.

Hey, liberals! There's a reason why illegal Hispanics and jihadis aren't represented by the system. In the first place, they have broken the law by coming here without completing the administrative state's vital and voluminous paperwork. In the second place, they intend to break the law by violently overturning the United States government and its separation of church and state, replacing Western culture with Sharia law. And I thought that you guys were supposed to be the smart ones.

My point, in the original article, was that the strategy of representing the unrepresented was a wizard wheeze back in 1850. And in 1950 it was noble and honorable to make African-Americans full members of the American family.

But now, after 40 years of wage stagnation, we need to welcome the world? After 50 years of stigmatizing Christian fundamentalism, we need to import and promote Muslim fundamentalism? Alas, it's the only game the left knows how to play.

Good luck with that agenda, Tom Perez, if you want to get the Democrats back into the winner's circle here in the good old USA.

Let us talk about why the white working class has finally turned up in the Republican column. It is because the left repaid the loyalty of the working class -- won 150 years ago -- by leading it into the wilderness, with no Promised Land at the end of the journey. Why? Because the left blocked off the road to the middle class with tribal labor unions and replaced mutual aid and fraternal associations with government welfare. So the white working class ended up dying of despair in the Rust Belt, and liberals didn't care. In fact New York Times columnist Charles Blow seems to think that the white working class had it coming.

You may have noticed that President Trump is clearly making a bid for the votes of African-Americans. I say he has a sporting chance, given that liberals have repaid the loyalty of African-Americans -- won 70 years ago -- by leading them into the wilderness, with no Promised Land at the end of the journey. Why? Because the left blocked off the road to the middle class with identity politics and Black Lives Matter. No wonder African-Americans are angry -- the First Black President seems to have done nothing for them.

Now let us talk about women, that seem to be beside themselves after having got out the champagne to celebrate the First Woman President last November. I'd say that someday, after the liberals have left them in the wilderness of divorce, sexual revolution, abortion, no children, and a boring nine-to-five job with no Promised Land of a work/life balance in sight, that even the liberal women presently besieging their therapists will realize that they have been had. And hell hath no fury, etc.

Have you noticed? What I have just written about the working class is called, by our liberal friends, classism; what I have just written about African-Americans is called, by our liberal friends, racism; and what I have just written down about women is sexism.

You may wonder why that is so, but I do not. I have stopped wondering about that sort of thing. There is only one answer to the vile accusation of racism, sexism, or homophobia: We Don't Care.

God bless our liberal rulers for doubling down on their represent-the-unrepresented politics. It may be the only thing they know, it may lead millions of people into the wilderness, it may be brutally divisive and neo-feudal, but at least they believe in it, and at least they are consistent.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a lot of Americans voting for the party of illegal immigration and religious war.

Trump Accuses Obama Of Being Behind Protests, Leaks

Zero Hedge - Tuesday February 28, 2017

by Tyler Durden

In an interview with Fox & Friends that aired early Tuesday morning, President Trump blamed former President Obama for protests against him and other Republicans, as well as "possibly" some of the leaks from the White House: “I think President Obama’s behind it, because his people are certainly behind it."

Trump was asked if he believed Obama was responsible for the town hall protests against Republicans this month: "It turns out his organization seems to do a lot of these organizing to some of the protests that these Republicans are seeing around the country against you. Do you believe President Obama is behind it and if he is, is that a violation of the so-called unsaid presidents' code?" Trump was asked.

"No, I think he is behind it, because his people are certainly behind it. I also think it is politics, that's the way it is," Trump replied.

Trump discussed the leaks that have disrupted his first month in office: "You never know what's exactly happening behind the scenes. You know, you're probably right or possibly right, but you never know. No, I think that President Obama is behind it because his people are certainly behind it. And some of the leaks possibly come from that group, which are really serious because they are very bad in terms of national security. But I also understand that is politics. In terms of him being behind things, that's politics. And it will probably continue."

Trump did not offer any evidence for his claim in the clip released by Fox Monday night. CNN reported that it has reached out to Obama's office for comment. A broad coalition of groups including Organizing For Action, the SEIU, MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress have been working to help with grassroots organizing around GOP town halls.

Organizing for Action, the group formed from Obama's campaign organization, has 14 professional organizers, for example, who are involved in teaching local activists skills to effectively vocalize opposition to the GOP's top agenda items.

Earlier this month, Trump told Fox News that reports of his calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia were caused by leaks from "Obama people."

Trump's administration has been plagued by leaks within his administration to the media, and he has continually railed against those doing the leaking and the media since taking office, even slamming the FBI for being unable to root out the leakers. He has said the leaks are damaging to national security.

* * *

And speaking of the leaks, Trump said that he would've handled the crackdown on government leaks differently than Sean Spicer, having "one-on-one sessions with a few people," instead of the way White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer did it: in an "emergency meeting" for White House communications staffers where he asked them to dump their phones on the table for a "phone check" to prove they had nothing to hide.

* * *

Additionally, Trump also discussed accusations that he is a racist, especially in the aftermath of the Acamdey Awards where the topic prevailed, and wrote them off as “purely politics.”

“It just seems the other side whenever they are losing badly they always pull out the race card,” Trump said in response to a question on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends” about host Jimmy Kimmel’s comments Sunday night at the Academy Awards.

“I’ve watched it for years. I’ve watched it against Ronald Reagan. I’ve watched it against so many other people. And they always like pulling out the race card,” Trump added. “The fact is I did pretty well, much better than past people in the Republican Party in the recent election having to do with Hispanics, having to do with African Americans, did pretty well or I wouldn’t be sitting here. I mean if I didn’t get numbers that were at least as good or better I wouldn’t be sitting here.”

When asked if he takes the attacks personally, Trump responded, “I can’t" and added that “I consider it a very serious violation when they say it and I have to write it off as being purely politics.”

* * *

Finally, Trump said he would give himself an "A" in achievement but in messaging a "C or C plus." "In terms of messaging, I would give myself a C or a C plus," Trump said. "In terms of achievement I think I'd give myself an A. Because I've done great things, but I don't think we've explained it well enough to the American people."

The President also gave himself an "A" for "effort."

Markets will be closely watching Trump's address to Congress in just over 13 hours, and grading him on every word to come out of his mouth, with some speculating that lack of any explicit, and overdue, details about his economic plans could be the final nail in the nearly four month old reflation trade.

Congress Should Fix Obamacare By Giving Health Care Back To States

The Federalist - Tuesday February 28, 2017

by John Daniel Davidson

When President Trump addresses a joint session of Congress tonight, he should make health care reform the centerpiece of his remarks, and he should make it clear to congressional Republicans what he has in mind. Ideally, he should strongly support repeal, even if a replacement plan isn’t ready to go.

The GOP has talked about repealing and replacing Obamacare nonstop for nearly seven years now. Republicans have won federal, state, and even local elections on promises to dismantle the law. If they fail to do it now, Republican voters might well be incensed—and with good reason.

Republican lawmakers are terrified they’ll get blamed for taking coverage away from millions of Americans if they repeal the law. An analysis presented Saturday to the National Governors Association (then leaked to Vox) predicted significant coverage losses if Republicans switch from Obamacare’s income-based tax credits to age-based tax credits, as outlined a recent 19-page proposal released by GOP leadership. The Vox headline warned “millions could lose coverage under GOP health proposal.”

But lost in the hemming and hawing over the potential political fallout is a simple fact: millions of American have already lost coverage as a direct result of the Affordable Care Act, which regulated their old plans out of existence. Millions more have simply opted out of health insurance coverage altogether because they can’t afford the overregulated ACA plans offered through the exchanges.

So far, Trump has been hopelessly muddled on the issue. During his campaign, he promised to replace Obamacare with something “terrific” that would “take care of everybody.” On Monday, he told reporters that “nobody knew that health care could be so complicated,” and suggested Republicans should just “let it be a disaster,” and blame it on Democrats and Obama.

At this point, letting Obamacare collapse under its own weight is bad idea. It made sense when Obama occupied the White House, but now that Republicans control the legislative and executive branches, it’s their responsibility to do something about it. But they need not craft a GOP version of the law with all the same pitfalls and costs as Obamacare. Instead, they should repeal the law and make a forceful case for health care federalism: states, not the federal government, should be the primary regulators of health insurance.

If States Want Bigger Medicaid, Let Them Pay For It

Of all the damage Obamacare has done, perhaps the most structurally important has been the federal takeover of health insurance markets. Recall that before the ACA, states were largely responsible for regulating individual and group health insurance. That’s one reason the cost of coverage varied from state to state. Some states, like New York and Washington, experimented with Obamacare-like provisions in the 1990s, and in the process nearly destroyed their individual health insurance markets.

Congress could repeal major tax and spending provisions of the law through the reconciliation process, as they are reportedly preparing to do, then invite states to step in and “replace”—or recreate—elements of Obamacare if they so choose.

Take Medicaid expansion. Despite the media’s specious refrain that the ACA has covered 20 million people, the vast majority of coverage gains under Obamacare have come from Medicaid expansion, the federal-state program originally created to provide coverage for the frail elderly, the disabled, and women and children.

Even so, repealing Medicaid expansion, the argument goes, would mean snatching coverage away from millions of poor Americans. This isn’t just a Democratic talking point. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, one of 16 Republican governors who expanded Medicaid under the ACA, has been lobbying to save that part of the law.

It’s a legitimately vexing problem. To date, 31 states and the District of Columbia have received generous federal funding for their expanded Medicaid programs, while 19 states have refused to expand. How do you maintain funding for expansion states without shortchanging non-expansion states?

One compromise floating around is to temporarily keep funding for those currently enrolled in expansion states but block future funding. At the same time, the federal government would make new funds available to non-expansion states to offset the costs incurred by hospitals that treat large numbers of poor and indigent patients.

It’s a horrible idea. The federal government inflates state budgets (and therefore controls state policymaking) enough as it is. The last thing we need are more entitlement programs that enmesh states in federal policy schemes.

Every State Doesn’t Have to Be the Same

Instead, Congress should say to states, “if you like your expansion, you can keep it.” Of course, there would be a catch: states would have to pay for the expansion population based on the old Medicaid reimbursement rates. Traditionally, the federal government only pays about 60 percent of the cost of covering Medicaid enrollees. To entice states to expand their programs, the ACA offered a better rate: 100 percent to start with, ratcheting down to 90 percent by the year 2020. It was basically an extortion scheme, an offer too good for states to refuse. It also strengthened pre-existing incentives for states to game the Medicaid funding system to increase federal funding without actually raising taxes.

Repealing the enhanced funding would not only reduce federal leverage over state agencies, it would rectify the disparity between expansion and non-expansion states. If expansion states really want to keep covering all those newly eligible enrollees, they will simply have to pay for more of the coverage costs themselves.

After all, states are taxing entities. There’s nothing to stop lawmakers in, say, California from increasing taxes to pay for more generous Medicaid coverage in their state. If voters in Oregon want their Medicaid program to cover able-bodied, working-age adults with no children, by all means they should go ahead. Even before the ACA, Medicaid programs varied widely from state to state, with blue states generally offering more generous benefits than red states. There’s no reason that can’t continue.

The same goes for individual health insurance markets. Before Obamacare, states largely had control over these markets. Many states had (and still have) benefits mandates very similar to those in the ACA. Texas, a deep red state, has something like 62 benefit mandates. If states want to make health insurance more expensive by larding it up with required benefits, Congress should let them do it—and let state voters hold state lawmakers accountable.

All of this goes back to a core constitutional principle of federalism. Just because Obama and the Democrats tried to nationalize health care doesn’t mean Republicans should tie themselves in knots trying to make Obamacare palatable—or functional. If they really want it, let the states have at it.

Trump was referring to Pelosi’s statement yesterday that he has accomplished “nothing” during his first 40 days in office.

But he could have also been talking about Pelosi’s recent speech to Families USA, a group fighting the repeal or reform of Obamacare.

Pelosi was seen repeating words, telling the audience when to clap and mistakingly said John Kasich was the governor of Illinois.

Pelosi began by thanking the person who introduced her for his “recanting of what happened at the time” Democrats and activist groups rammed through Obamacare.

She recalled telling her fellow Democrats that the Affordable Care Act was going to be a major achievement for government programs, and “stand there with Social Security and Medicare and Medicare,” apparently meaning to say “Medicaid.”

She attempted to butter up the audience by heaping praise on Families USA.

After attendees didn’t clap after she congratulated them for her work, she said, “When I said we could not have done it without Families USA, that is an applause line for you.”

She added, “Applause line!” after she said she looked forward to continuing to work with the activist group.

Pelosi even attempted to convey what she thought was a deep point.

“By the way, do you know who the poorest people in America are? Infants and children. Infants and children,” she said.

While Pelosi attempted to underscore bi-partisan support for Medicaid, she said, “Don’t take it from me. John Kasich, the governor of Illinois said, ‘Thank God for Medicaid.'”

Kasich is governor of Ohio — another flyover state that starts with a vowel in the eyes of a West Coast liberal.

Pelosi flubbed MLK’s name, calling him “Martin Luther Sing.”

Nevertheless, the liberal activists gave the House Minority Leader a standing ovation.

President Trump told governors at a meeting at the White House Monday that his administration will put forward its own ObamaCare replacement plan within a few weeks, according to two governors who attended the meeting.

The message came in one of several meetings between the administration, lawmakers and top state officials as Republicans try to find a path forward on ObamaCare, particularly the law's expansion of Medicaid. Several Republican governors and lawmakers from states that accepted the expansion are looking to protect it, creating a thorny issue for the GOP.

It appears governors will have to react to a White House plan along with congressional efforts, given Trump's comments on Monday.

"The way I felt, I think Secretary [of Health and Human Services Tom] Price was going to be coming up with a plan," Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) told a small group of reporters on Monday after returning from the White House meeting.

"I felt that way, didn't you, Brian? It was pretty clear," McAuliffe said, referring to Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R), who was standing next to him.

Sandoval then said "yes" and indicated the message was that the administration plan would be ready "within a few weeks."

McAuliffe said Price, who was in the meeting, mentioned the plan would be ready in three weeks. Trump replied, "No, I want it in two," according to McAuliffe.

"So, poor Tom Price," McAuliffe added.

There has been some confusion as to whether the administration is putting forward its own plan or whether Trump, in a series of past statements referring to a coming plan, has been referring to joint efforts with congressional Republicans.

Congressional Republicans are looking to move forward with committee markups on legislation in the House within a few weeks.

A separate plan from the White House could throw a curveball into the process and shift the debate.

But congressional Republicans themselves are still grappling with a range of issues, with Medicaid expansion among the most prominent.

An outline of a proposal that House Republicans distributed to rank-and-file lawmakers earlier this month called for effectively ending the Medicaid expansion by abolishing, after some transition period, the federal funds that allow for it.

But Republican lawmakers told governors on Monday that that draft "does not reflect current thinking," according to Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, who attended the meeting.

Lawmakers declined to say, however, what substantial changes had been made to their plans for Medicaid expansion since the draft was circulated.

ObamaCare gives states the option to expand eligibility for Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor and disabled, up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line.

Repeal of the expansion would jeopardize coverage for the 11 million people who have gained it through the ObamaCare provision.

That is worrying some governors and GOP lawmakers. Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), for example, has been a vocal defender of the Medicaid expansion.

"I understand that there was an initial effort by House Republicans to, for example, phase out Medicaid expansion, which means phasing out coverage," Kasich said on CNN after the House GOP draft was released. "That is a very, very bad idea, because we cannot turn our back on the most vulnerable."

Sandoval is another Republican governor defending the Medicaid expansion. When asked if he was worried by the draft, he said he did not want to comment on congressional efforts until a final plan is released.

But he also suggested he would look to make sure his constituents could maintain coverage.

"My baseline is to protect the 300,000 people [in Nevada] that were part of the expansion and make sure that they continue to have coverage," he said.

Sandoval said after a meeting with congressional Republicans Monday afternoon that they did not say whether they plan to keep the expansion. But he said he was encouraged that lawmakers and Secretary Price said they did not want people to lose coverage.

"There's no specificity and that's one of the things that I want to see, is specificity, but at least in terms of a general statement, [the message] is that no one's going to lose their coverage," Sandoval said.

Cornyn, who represents a state that did not expand Medicaid, indicated Monday that lawmakers might look for different ways to get people coverage, such as a tax credit.

A tax credit to buy private coverage would be an adjustment, though, for low-income people who currently have almost all their costs covered by Medicaid.

"I don't think we ought to limit ourselves, maybe there's a way to also get people access to coverage through tax credits or some other mechanism," Cornyn said.

Monday, February 27, 2017

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) thinks Attorney General Jeff Sessions should recuse himself from any investigation into the White House's ties to Russia to determine whether the latter had any influence in the presidential election. Leave the job to a special prosecutor instead, Issa told Bill Maher on Friday.

"You're right that you cannot have somebody, a friend of mine, Jeff Sessions who was on the campaign and who is an appointee," Issa said. "You're going to need to use the special prosecutor's statute and office."

Other Republicans, like Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said those decisions can be made further down the line.

"I think it's way getting ahead of ourselves," Cotton told Chuck Todd on Sunday's "Meet the Press." For starters, he said, "there's no indication there's a crime occurring." All the media has to go on, he said, are unnamed sources.

"If we get down that road," then Attorney General Sessions can make that decision.

“I wasn't saying that he shouldn't recuse himself or that he should. My point is I don't think we're there yet. Let's work through this process. You guys want to jump to the very end of the line. That's not how this works. Typically, you go through a congressional oversight review. We're doing that. Let's not go to the very end of the extreme. Let's let this play out the way it should.”

Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) was a bit more directin his answer as to whether the situation requires a special prosecutor. "No," it doesn't Christie told CNN's Jake Tapper, because the "professionals" at the Justice Department have often proven themselves capable of investigating matters with a neutral lens.

We know where the president stands on the matter.

Russia talk is FAKE NEWS put out by the Dems, and played up by the media, in order to mask the big election defeat and the illegal leaks!

Measuring Democrats’ Unprecedented Cabinet Obstruction

A month into Donald Trump’s presidency key Cabinet posts remain unfilled and many officials who have assumed their posts did so only after near party-line votes.

The contrast with the treatment accorded then-President Barack Obama’s nominees is stark.

“Certainly, Trump didn’t shy away from people who he knew would be controversial.”

Consider the position of attorney general, where Jeff Sessions — despite two decades serving in the Senate alongside his fellow senators — received the vote of only one Democrat. Meanwhile, Eric Holder — one of Obama’s most controversial nominees — won “yes” votes from nearly half of Republicans. That included Sessions, himself.

Fourteen of Obama appointments requiring Senate approval did not even have recorded votes. Instead, the Senate confirmed them on unanimous “voice votes.”

The lack of deference shown Sessions contrasts with the way Senate Republicans treated a Democratic colleague up for a Cabinet post in 2009 — Hillary Clinton. Only two of 41 Republicans opposed her nomination as secretary of state. Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, captured only four Democratic votes.

“Hopefully, next week he’ll get his approval, about three or four weeks late — and you’re doing better than most, right?” he said.

Carson, whose confirmation hearing took place before Trump even took the oath of office, is still waiting for a vote.

The Cabinet: Obama vs. Trump

Minority party votes for nominee

Position

2009

2017

Attorney General

19

1

Secretary of State

39

4

Treasury

10

1

Labor

22

?*

HHS

9**

0

EPA

Voice Vote

2

CIA

Voice Vote

15

OMB Dir.

Voice Vote

0

UN rep.

Voice Vote

44

Transportation

Voice Vote

42

Homeland Sec.

Voice Vote

37

Small Biz Admin.

Voice Vote

29

Education

Voice Vote

0

Defense

No vote***

47

Veterans Affairs

Voice Vote

48

Commerce

Voice Vote****

?

Agriculture

Voice Vote

?

Energy

Voice Vote

?

HUD

Voice Vote

?

Interior

Voice Vote

?

*Andrew Puzder withdrew.

**After Tom Daschle withdrew.

***Robert Gates stayed on from Bush admin.

****After first two nominees withdrew.

Source: U.S. Senate

The president complained again on Feb. 16 during his first news conference as president.

“So if the Democrats, who have — all you have to do is look at where they are right now — the only thing they can do is delay, because they’ve screwed things up royally, believe me,” he said.

Nothing illustrates the Democratic posture better than the nomination of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who did not win a single Democratic vote. Vice President Mike Pence had to break a 50-50 tie to confirm her. White House press secretary Sean Spicer chided the opposition party afterward for their “childish tactics” meant to keep a “failed status quo,” and told reporters that it was a “glaring reminder of the unprecedented obstruction that Senate Democrats have engaged in throughout this process.”

In a speech on the Senate floor earlier this month, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) lambasted his Democratic colleagues for engaging in a “futile gesture” to slow nominations they cannot stop.

“I hope at some point here, the other side will accept the results of last year’s election, allow the administration to get fully staffed and ready to go,” he said. “But the desire, I guess, in place of the far Left has been a consuming passion for them so far.”

Traditionally, the Senate has given presidents broad leeway to pick their own advisers. Unless a scandal erupted, Cabinet confirmation votes have been low-drama affairs.

That was the case for Obama. Scandal forced the withdrawal of a pair of nominations — Health and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle amid revelations that failed to pay taxes on consulting fees he had earned; and Commerce Department nominee Bill Richardson, amid a grand jury investigation. A second nominee for the Commerce Department, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, changed his mind about taking the job.

But the nominations that actually came to a vote mostly won broad Republican support.

“The ones who weren’t voice-voted received only a handful of ‘no’ votes, relatively,” said Jason Pye, director of public policy and legislative affairs for the free market FreedomWorks. “They’re still pissed off about the results of the election.”

Christopher Devine, a political science professor at the University of Dayton, said the views and backgrounds of nominees like DeVos and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt — guaranteed confirmation fights.

“Certainly, Trump didn’t shy away from people who he knew would be controversial,” he said.

But even consensus choices have received more opposition than in the past. Elaine Chao, who has prior experience as a Cabinet secretary and was tapped to lead the relatively minor post of transportation secretary, still drew a half-dozen “no” votes. Obama’s first transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, got through on a voice vote.

“Eight years on, our politics have become more partisan,” Devine said. “These things do get worse over time.”

Devine said it is too soon to say for sure if this is the new normal. A future president who makes more moderate nominations may faces less opposition-party resistance, he said. But he added, “Let’s be realistic; it’s unlikely.”

Pye, of FreedomWorks, said Democrats are likely to continue their delaying tactics with the remainder of Trump’s Cabinet.

“They’re going to keep losing on these things,” he said. “There’s nothing progressive about what they’re doing. They’re regressive. They want to take this country back.”